Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15746/MED

In the matter of an appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”), from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a licence pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Kyle Johnson

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Dr. Kailey Minnings, Member Colin Osterberg, Vice-Chair

For the Appellant:

Jami Sanftleben, Paralegal

For the Respondent:

Sharon Nelson, Representative

HEARD: June 5, 2024

1Kyle Johnson (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) to suspend his Class G. licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) after the Registrar received a report from a treating health care provider that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect his safety to drive.

2The Registrar has the authority under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence for any sufficient reason. Section 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 under the Act (the “Regulation”) states that a holder of a driver’s licence must not suffer from any mental, emotional, nervous or physical condition or disability likely to significantly interfere with their ability to safely drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. Under s. 14(2)(b) of the Regulation, the Minister of Transportation may require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that they are able to drive safely.

3The Registrar takes the position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and that this provides sufficient reason to suspend his licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act.

4The appellant appeals the suspension under s. 50(1) of the Act. He acknowledges that he suffers from alcohol use disorder but denies that he suffers from a medical condition which interferes with his ability to drive safely.

5Pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act, after a hearing the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

ISSUES

6The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

7To resolve that issue, we will address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from alcohol use disorder?

ii. If so, is this likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

8The Registrar bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the answer to each of the above questions is “yes.”

RESULT

9Having considered all the evidence and submissions, and for the reasons that follow, we find that the Registrar has satisfied its burden to establish that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely and we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

Does the appellant suffer from alcohol use disorder?

10The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder.

11The Registrar’s position is supported by medical reports completed by Dr. M. Cavanagh, critical care physician, who diagnosed the appellant with severe alcohol use disorder in an unsolicited Medical Condition Report dated November 6, 2022; and by Dr. M. Susil, who diagnosed the appellant with substance use disorder, alcohol in a second unsolicited Medical Condition Report dated November 12, 2022. On May 6, 2024, Dr. K. Richardson, the appellant’s family doctor, diagnosed the appellant with severe substance use disorder.

12The appellant admits that he suffers from alcohol use disorder.

13We find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from substance use disorder.

Is the appellant’s medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

14We find that the Registrar has proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

15The Registrar argues that the appellant’s substance use disorder interferes with the appellant’s ability to drive safely. In addition to the medical documentation filed in evidence, the Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”) which states that impaired driving is the leading cause of criminal death in Canada. The CCMTA Standards note that alcohol impacts various functional abilities necessary for driving including, but not limited to:

iii. reduced reaction times;

iv. blurred or double vision;

v. altered depth perception;

vi. reduced judgement and insight;

vii. blunted alertness; and

viii. reduced motor coordination.

16Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Registrar to consider the CCMTA Standards when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. The Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration but are not bound by them. The above impacts of alcohol use are well-known, and we accept that they represent some of the effects of alcohol use which make its use before driving unsafe.

17The appellant argues that his alcohol use disorder does not impact his ability to drive safely. He testified that he has abstained from using alcohol for the past 6 months and intends to continue to abstain from using alcohol permanently in the future. The appellant says he has attended Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) since 2022, has had counselling with respect to his use of alcohol and took part in the Back on Track program.

18The appellant says that he no longer places himself in situations which in the past have led to alcohol use and he has, along with his family, a new set of friends who support his abstinence.

19The CCMTA Standards recommend that a driver who has been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder may be eligible for licence reinstatement if they meet the criteria for remission and/or have abstained from alcohol for 12 months. Earlier re-licensing may be considered under the CCMTA Standards upon favourable recommendation from qualified physician or addictions specialist, and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program.

20In our view, the criteria for eligibility for licence reinstatement set out in the CCMTA Standards are reasonable and applicable to the appellant’s circumstances. He has a history of two impaired driving convictions. The second involved an incident which occurred within months of the first, and while the appellant was attending AA and receiving counselling for his alcohol use disorder. He continued to use alcohol regularly even after the second impaired driving incident and after his convictions relating to those offences. In our view, this demonstrates a pattern of poor insight and judgement. The appellant’s circumstances require a significant period of abstinence and the support of a treating physician before the Tribunal can be satisfied that his alcohol use disorder is no longer likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

21The appellant has not met any of the criteria set out by the CCMTA Standards for reinstatement. According to the appellant, he has abstained from alcohol for only six months. He has not produced any objective evidence of his abstinence such as urine or blood testing or a physician’s opinion that he has remained abstinent for that period of time. In her most recent Substance Use Assessment Form dated May 6, 2024, Dr. Richardson states that the appellant suffers from severe substance use disorder, defined as “the repetitive inappropriate use of alcohol … associated with loss of control, inability to abstain, a preoccupation with obtaining alcohol…, and withdrawal symptoms”, and that he has been abstinent for less than six months.

22The appellant has not presented a favourable recommendation from a qualified physician or addictions specialist and as noted, Dr. Richardson continues to classify the appellant’s substance abuse disorder as severe.

23We acknowledge that the appellant has taken the Back on Track program, which is a program required by the Ministry of Transportation in order to qualify for relicensing following an impaired driving conviction. We also acknowledge that the appellant has, in the past, attended AA and had counselling through a private agency for several months. He has also been prescribed medication to help with his cravings by his family doctor. However, the appellant says he stopped attending AA about six months ago and he stopped seeing his counsellor about 8 months ago. He could not name the medication he has been prescribed at the hearing.

24We are concerned that none of the persons who have assisted the appellant in his recovery from his alcohol use disorder have indicated that they support reinstatement of the appellant’s driver’s licence.

25We also note that the appellant appears to have stopped seeing his counsellor and attending AA at the around same time he determined to abstain from alcohol. This, in our view, further indicates a lack of insight and judgement on the part of the appellant and increases our concern that without sufficient support and insight, his abstinence may not continue .

26We commend the appellant for the efforts he has made recently to overcome his alcohol use disorder. However, in our view, the evidence presented at the hearing supports the Registrar’s position that the appellant’s licence should remain suspended. He has not abstained for the 12 months recommended in the CCMTA Standards and his treating health professionals have not indicated that they support licence reinstatement at this time. Moreover, the appellant has not demonstrated that he possesses insight or judgement with respect to his alcohol use disorder and we find that this increases the likelihood that it will impact the appellant’s ability to drive safely.

27We are satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

28We find that the Registrar has discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

29For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

Released: July 2, 2024

__________________________

Dr. Kailey Minnigs

Adjudicator